Talk:King George V class battleship (1939)/Archive 1

List

I'm just wondering, can we create a section which is basically a list of the ships of the class and a short history of them, much like the American Iowa class wiki article has? I don't know all their names to begin with, let alone the histories and full fates of them, I couldn't do it on my own, so should we do the same on this page? 86.134.157.176 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go. Is this the only major reservation on content? If so, it should be adequtely cited and moved to B class, IMO. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You need more footnotes. There are sections that don't have any. That will be an instant hang-up for B class. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

5.25" Guns

The available data for this gun is contradictory. The primary source document, The Gunnery Pocket Book, contradicts Campbell, and Campbell's own book, Naval Weapons of WW2, quotes a RN Gunnery Report, stating that RN gunners could fire 92lb 4.5" rounds at 12 RPM for long periods of time, so Campbell's own statements are contradicted within his own works. I have added a subtitle to the section on the 5.25" guns indicating that the available data is contradictory. Damwiki1 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. The Gunnery Pocket book states the desired RoF, while Campbell and Williams, both amongst the finest experts in the field, state that this rate of fire was simply not achieved in practice. Can you provide a quote where Campbell's book supposedly quotes the RN report? I cannot find it. Kurfürst (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gunnery Pocket Book was a classified primary source document. It states the actual maximum rate of fire. It is the maximum rate of fire which is of primary importance when dealing with air attack, not the sustained rate for long periods of time. I have provided part of the text from page 17 of Campbell in the relevant reference. Damwiki1 (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems this is a primary source - Wikipedia policy is that content should rely on Wikipedia:Reliable sources that also satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Primary, especially classified sources have problems with that criteria, and as a result they cannot be used, unless, for example, it is available online in its full, and readers can verify its contents. I know its annoying, but if you think it over, there is a good reason for that - its easy to misuse sources no-one can check.

Page 17 in Campbell book I have makes mention of the 4.5" RoF in January 1941, however I do not see how this connects to the article, or if it satisfy :Wikipedia:No original research

Also please do not add 'claimed' and arguements like 'only post-war author', when the sources in question are the foremost experts on the fields with many definitive publications. I will have to de-weasel these. See Weasel word and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words Cheers, Kurfürst (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst is vandalizing this article. Here is the Gunnery Report from PoW :http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm234/adm234-509guns.htm nowhere does it state that PoW was reduced to two main armament guns, nor does G&D state this, therefore, I am reverting the article to the last edit prior to his vandalism. Damwiki1 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If Kurfurst would take the time to read the references he would see that the Gunnery Pocket book is available online in its entirety for all see. Damwiki1 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have created separate entries for 14 and 5.25" guns for ease of discussion.

The reference that Kurfürst provided: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCGWW2.html by Anthony G Williams, states: "The problems with the new calibres arose as wartime experience revealed that the maximum weight which the loading numbers could handle comfortably was much lower than 80-90lb and the weight of the 4.5in and 5.25in ammunition caused serious difficulties. This was subsequently remedied in the 4.5in by separating the shell from its case and its rate of fire was increased to 15 rpm. However, initially nothing could be done about the 5.25in (not helped by its cramped gunhouse) which could reportedly manage a rate of only 7-8 rpm instead of the designed 10-12, a failing which significantly reduced its AA effectiveness. The problem was not remedied until the introduction of the improved mounting in HMS Vanguard, which achieved the intended rate."

Note the use of the "weasel" word "reportedly" which I have bolded, for emphasis. Note also the discussion that it was the 80-90lb weight of both the 90lb 4.5" fixed ammunition and the 80lb 5.25" shell which is claimed have caused problems and to lower the rate of fire to 7-8 rpm for the 5.25" gun. Yet Campbell on page 17 states: HMS Illustrious' "...eight available 4.5" guns fired about 3000 rounds at an average of twelve per gun per minute..." . This should raise serious doubts about the reliability of claims that the weight of the 5.25" slowed its rate of fire below that stated in the Gunnery Pocket Book, of 10-12 RPM. Illustrious' 4.5" guns fired a fixed case round weighing 90-92lbs. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Training rates of the 5.25" gun. I know that there are references (Navweaps for one) that claim the 5.25" gun's training and elevation rates are inadequate for engaging modern WW2 era aircraft, but they are wrong. You only have to create an equilateral triangle to demonstrate this. At 3000 yds a 270 knot (150yds/sec) aircraft will change bearing by 60 degs in 20 seconds while flying on a parallel course so as to generate the highest rate of bearing change. This is only 3 degrees per second, and well within the capability of the 5.25 turret at 10degs/sec. A typical target that is attacking will be flying an intercept course and will generate a very much smaller rate of bearing change. Very high rates of training (20degs sec), such as generated by Anson's RP10 equipped turrets 5.25" are very useful for traversing quickly to engage new targets. However it is not surprising that sources such as Campbell do not claim that the 5.25" couldn't engage modern aircraft because it is just not true. This is another of these situations where something is stated that is not true but it is hard to disprove because most sources are written to state what is true, not to refute mistaken claims. Damwiki1 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The above seems to be your own theory and/or original research. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources, not theories or opinions by its editors. Besides IMHO the very fact that they felt need to *double* the training rate on the Anson shows that even the designers considered the training rates unsatisfactory, and that it needed to be improved. Kurfürst (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Original research. If you read the rules on original research you find:

"This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived."

Whilst I agree with Kurfürst that further improvement in what Damwiki1 has added could usefully be done (i.e. adding citations along the lines of what he has put in the talk page above), I do not agree that Damwiki1's calculations are original research. They are just routine calculations. Anyone over the age of 10 could repeat these calculations with a set of trig tables, a slide rule or a pocket calculator.

On the other hand, the assumption that the very fact that they felt need to *double* the training rate on the Anson shows that even the designers considered the training rates unsatisfactory is original research.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

14" Guns

Whatever a website does not state is fairly irrevelent. And, despite your 'claims' that Garzke and Dullin does not state this, they do: on page 190, direct quote: "This temporarily left only two 14-inch guns operational, but of ten were again ready for use within five hours."

Also, I suggest you to watch your language. It very much looks like to me that you are POV-pushing against written references, unable to compromise, or cooperate, and lately you have resorted to accusation like vandalism. Beware that if you continue such behaviour, it will be reported, and you may be banned from editing by wiki admins. Kurfürst (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"the Gunnery Pocket book is available online" - where? give us a link, there is no such in the article currently. If the material is primary and is not verifiable, it will need to be removed as per wiki policy. Kurfürst (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/br224/part1.htm

and this location was stated in the reference. please read the references and dicuss them. Damwiki1 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no link provided - it is the editor who makes the change who has to provide these, but whatever, I added the link to the book myself. Thanks for providing it. Kurfürst (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"This temporarily left only two 14-inch guns operational, but of ten were again ready for use within five hours." This quote is a mistake by G&D. The primary source PoW Gunnery report does not state this. PoW always had at least 5 guns in operation, even after Y turret jammed. See the section entitled: B - Events during the First Action from: http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm234/adm234-509guns.htm This is why primary sources, if available are prefered. Damwiki1 (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Damwiki1 perhaps you should edit Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources, so that instead of saying Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources , it could say that primary source material should have precedence?

Regarding contradictions between sources, it is best to explain them in the footnotes. If necessary footnotes can contain tables comparing sources. Most readers would find the Prince of Wales's gunnery report a difficult document to understand, so since you do understand it, it would be really helpful if you would explain what appear to be contradictions between this and various secondary sources in footnotes to the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Respect cited sources

Constantly trying to fill referenced citations with weasel words like 'claimed', filling them with your own, unreferenced arguements like 'provided no primary' evidence is not going to be successfull in getting your edits accepted by other editors. Try to be a bit more cooperative, respect and study the guidelines of wikipedia a bit before editing. Take note that especially that verifiability of statements/claims is the most important, and OR research - such as drawing your own conclusions, placing your own arguements for/against something - is unwanted. The quality of the article depends on reliable sources, verifiability, and NPOV. Your edits will be accepted as a matter of course if you can satisfy these requirements. Kurfürst (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst states:

"During the combat against the German battleship Bismarck, the main battery of Prince of Wales was riddled "

The used of the word riddled violates neutral POV. Kurfurst states: "with mechanical problems: it started to fire three-round salvos instead of five-round salvos, there were breakdowns in the elevation and training gears except for the twin "B" turret.

The main battery was reduced as much as 25 percent, as out of seventy-four rounds ordered fired, only fifty-five were possible. The turrets were taking in water, and both "A" and "Y" turrets jammed. At times, only two out of ten 14 inch guns were operational, forcing the battleship to disengage from combat.[18]

Here is PoW's Gunnery aspects report: B - Events during the First Action The following defects developed in "A" turret:- 1. "A" Turret On several occasions the shell ring rammers fouled the brackets on the hinge trays for No. 11 interlock. Shell could not be rammed until the bearing of the turret was changed. This also occurred in "Y" but did not prevent ramming. No. 1 gun only fired one salvo, due to the events described in A (i). After the second salvo, No. 24A interlock failed on No. 2 shell ring rammer. It was tripped after a short delay and thereafter assisted by hand. About halfway through the firing, the tappets operating the shell ring arrestor release gear on No. 4 rammer failed to release the arrestor. Subsequent examination has shown that the shaft carrying the levers operating these tappets had twisted. The rammer was kept in action by giving the tappets a heavy blow at each stroke. Shortly after this, a further defect occurred on No. 4 shell room rammer. When fully withdrawn the rammer failed to clear No. 7 interlock and the ring could not be locked. This was overcome by operating the gear with a pinch-bar at every stroke. Throughout the engagement the conditions in "A" shell handling room were very bad; water was pouring down from the upper part of the mounting. Only one drain is fitted and became choked; with the result that water accumulated and washed from side to side as the ship rolled. The streams above and floods below drenched the machinery and caused discomfort to the personnel. More drains should be fitted in the shell handling room and consideration given to a system of water catchment combined with improved drainage in the upper parts of the revolving structure. Every effort is being made to improve the pressure systems and further attempts will be made as soon as opportunity occurs to improve the mantlet weathering, but a certain amount of leaking is inevitable. 2 "B" Turret No mechanical defects. 3 "Y" Turret The following defects occurred in "Y" turret:- Salvo 11 - No. 3 central ammunition hoist was raised with shell but no cordite; No. 25 interlock having failed to prevent this. The interlock was functioning correctly before the engagement. There has been no opportunity to investigate this. It is also reported that the reason no cordite had been rammed was that the indicator in the cordite handling room did not show that the cage had been raised after the previous ramming stroke. This caused the gun to miss salvoes 15 to 20. Salvo 12 - Front flashdoors of No. 2 gun loading cage failed to open and cage could not be loaded. Flashdoors on transfer tubes were working correctly and investigation showed that adjustment was required on the vertical rod operating the palm levers which open the gun loading cage doors. To make this adjustment, three-quarter inch thread had to be cut on the rod. This defect was put in hand after the engagement had been broken off and was completed by 1300. It would appear that the operating gear had been strained, possibly by the foreign matter in the flashdoor casing making the doors tight. The doors were free when tried in the course of making the repair. This caused the gun to miss salvo 14 onwards. Salvo 20 - Owing to the motion of the ship, a shell slid out of the port shell room and fouled the revolving shell ring while the latter was locked to the trunk and the turret was training. The hinge tray was severely buckled, putting the revolving shell ring out of action. The tray was removed, but on testing the ring it was found that No. 3 and 4 hinge trays of the starboard shell room had also been buckled and were fouling the ring. The cause of this is not yet known. The trays were removed and as the action had stopped by this time, No. 4 tray was dressed up and replaced. The ring was out of action until 0825. This account was prepared by the ships officers and forms the official report of what transpired. It does not mention a jam of A turret. PoW turned away after salvo 18 so at that point she had 7 guns in operation: 3 in A turret, 2 in B Turret and 2 in Y turret. Kurfurst states:During the later action with Bismarck, King George V was also having trouble with her main battery, and every gun missed at least one salvo due to failures in the safety interlocks for antiflash protection. John Roberts wrote of main gunnery problems encountered by HMS King George V.Yet he quotes: "Initially she did well achieving 1.7 salvoes per minute while employing radar control but she began to suffer severe problems from 0920 onward [Note: KGV had opened fire at 0850]. So KGV opened fire at 850 and no problems were reported until 920, so his own quote contradicts his statement. The gunnery report of Prince of Wales is online for all to see, so we do not have to use another source, that is inaccurate. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst is incorrectly referencing G&D, his revision makes it appear that KGV missed at least one gun of every salvo when G&D actually state: Garzke and Dulin, 1980, p. 213-214: "At 0927 a shell hit the Bismarck...By that time KGV was having trouble with her main battery and and every gun missed at least one salvo..." so these problems are noted 37 minutes after KGV opened fire at 0850, not on every salvo, and this is consistent with the statement by John Roberts:Initially she did well achieving 1.7 salvoes per minute while employing radar control but she began to suffer severe problems from 0920 onward [Note: KGV had opened fire at 0850] KGV did not miss one gun of every salvo and there is no source that states this.

Prince of Wales fired 55 of 75 rounds requested, in 18 salvos. This is an output of 74%, and is taken directly from her Gunnery Aspects Report. Her Gunnery Report states that she had 7 guns in operation on salvo 18. The Gunnery report is online for anyone to reference, and must be considered a more accurate account of the action than any other source. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed Damwiki1's sources and he is correct. The article as it stands now is incorrect and I shall revise it accordingly. And heg (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I now regret having edited this article, but it was grossly incorrect. What a tempest in a teapot! And heg (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems in Prince of Wales turrets during her first action against Bismarck, according to her Gunnery Aspects Report:

"A" Turret No. 1 gun failed after the 1st salvo, from a previously known defect. No. 2 and no.4 guns suffered from intermittent safety interlock problems. "A" turret suffered from water entering the lower portion of the turret/barbette structure, but there is no indication that this caused any problems other than discomfort for the crew. Water entering or interfering with the forward, lower turrets, was a problem for most WW2 battleships, including Bismarck. At Salvo 18, when Prince of Wales turned away, 3 of 'A' turrets guns were in operation.

"B" Turret No problems reported. At Salvo 18, when Prince of Wales turned away, both (2) of 'B' turrets guns were in operation.

"Y" Turret No.2 gun had loading problems and missed salvo 14 onwards. No.3 gun had problems with safety interlocks causing it to miss salvos 15 to 20. At salvo 18 when Prince of Wales turned away, 2 of "Y" turrets guns were in operation. "Y" turrets shell transfer ring jammed at salvo 20, due to a shell sliding out of it's tray due to the motion of the ship as Prince of Wales turned.

In summary, 3 guns in "A" turret, 2 guns in "B" turret, and 2 guns in "Y" turret, were in operation at salvo 18 when Prince of wales turned away, for a total of 7 guns in operation. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But after salvo 21, all guns in Y turret were out of action due to the jammed transfer ring, and stayed out of action for more than 2 hours until 0825.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Captain Leach states that two of Y turrets guns were back in operation by 0720: "Two guns of "Y" Turret were again in action by 0720", see the external links on the Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait page. It just goes to show how poorly some of the accounts of this battle have been written. Damwiki1 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Even then that left 5 guns in operation, not two. But of course this happened after PoW turned away, and it was the turn away itself that caused Y turret's operation to be impaired. Captain Leach had 7 guns in operation when he decided to end the action, and since PoW fired 74% of the shells requested, it is easy to see that she had 7+ guns in operation, on average, during the action. Damwiki1 (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added numerous references to support Leach's decision to turn away and dispel contention that only 2 guns remained in action on Prince of wales guns when she turned away, I can add more but surely this is enough. The two online accounts of the battle are easily read by anyone who cares to. Damwiki1 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I dug up my copy of "King George V-class battleships", by Tarrant and on pages 54-62, there is a detailed account of the action which draws heavily on PoW's Gunnery Aspects Report, Leach's sworn statement and Admiral Tovey's Despatch, so there is a salvo by salvo account of the action and no mention of firepower being reduced to only 2 guns. It also draws upon "Alarm Starboard" by Geoffrey Brooke, who was a gunnery officer on PoW. I have this book, and again no mention of firepower being reduced to only 2 guns. I can add these two titles to the list of references if requested. Damwiki1 (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be very useful if you added the interpretation these two secondary sources make of the primary sources to the excellent primary source material you have quoted.

I have to say that whilst on subjective matters the preference for secondary sources in Wiki rules makes some sort of sense, on purely technical matters such as those being discussed here of exactly what guns were jammed when a preference for secondary sources over primary sources makes little sense - I think some people are playing the rules here in a way that they were never intended to.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add a reference from Tarrant and Brooke, in the next day or so. Yes, I agree about the primary/secondary source thing. It is virtually impossible to write an article on a technical subject without reference to primary sources, and in this day and age, with many such sources online, for all to see, it just doesn't make much sense at all. Damwiki1 (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

I'm surprised to see that Damwiki1's edit where he rather exhaustively researched the available literature and provided multiple sources to prove that Prince of Wales had 7 14" guns in operation when she turned away, and never had less than 5 guns in operation was reversed. Isn't the definition of "undue weight" that of relying too heavily on a single source? The Prince of Wales Gunnery report alone proves that G&D are wrong, but the references to Tarrent, The RN Naval Staff History, Brooks and Tovey should have been sufficient not to mention Bonomi and Asmussen. Asmussen and Bonomi even provide a salvo by salvo summery. What does a person have to do to prove a point? G&D are not infallible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by And heg (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be a pity if this work is lost. The editor that reverted it was simply making the point that it needed further development to be compliant with his interpretation of the rules - either that or the rules need changing. I was surprised that no effort was made by Damwiki1 to make the minor improvements required to the rules.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any references given made by the edit from Anonymous IP editor, making the same removals of the same sources as Damwiki1 did beforehand. Also of note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damwiki1/Archive. Unless some author states something that directly contradicts what G&D wrote, the conclusions of one editor is simply OR, having no place in any article, regardless if its pushed from multiple accounts or not. Kurfürst (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damwiki1/Archive discovered that And heg and Damwiki1 do not use the same IP address, and that there is no evidence that they are the same person. it is therefore irrelevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to monitor this article continuously and so I am disappointed to find that Kurfurst is continuing to place undue weight onto a single source for a claim that PoW had 8 of it's 10 guns out of action when she turned away. This statement is simply false, but before continuing let me say that I was wrong to call ADM 234/509 a primary source document, since by Wikipedia's definition it is a secondary source:"Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." The Gunnery Aspects report in ADM 234/509 http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm234/adm234-509guns.htm was written more than 2 weeks after the battle by Captain Leach and is a analysis and explanation of the PoW's gunnery and the state of her main armament during her various engagement's with Bismarck. Therefore it is a secondary source by wikipedia's own definition. Now as regards to further data regarding the state of her guns when PoW withdrew, here is what Roskill says in the War at Sea, Vol 1, page 406: "In addition to the defective gun in her forward turret another 4 gun turret was now temporarily incapacitated by mechanical breakdowns. In these circumstances Captain Leach decided to break off the action..." now for some simple arithmetic: 10 14" guns minus 1 = 9 guns - 4 guns = 5 guns in action, after the turn away, exactly as stated in ADM 234/509. Alarm starboard by Geoffrey Brooke, p60, states: "But Gun's telephone line to the Captain had been broken; he had sent his boy messenger down to tell the Captain that the main armament was alright (he did not know that at that moment there were 5 guns out of action), the poor fellow returning very green about the gills about what he had seen." Again there is no mention of 8 guns out of action. Another source which I have not mentioned previously is Naval Battles of WW II by Geoffrey Bennett, p141: "With the range down to 14500 yds and with five of his 14 inch guns out of action, Leach decided to break off his engagement with a superior enemy." The Bismarck Episode, by Grenfell discusses the action from pages 50 to 55. Grenfell notes on page 50 that A turret had one gun which would only be able to fire one round until being repaired in port. On page 54 Grenfell states: "Small mechanical breakdowns kept occurring in the turrets, now one gun and then another missing a salvo or two." On pages 54-55 he states that Y turret jammed as PoW turned away, so that Grenfell's account is also consistent with ADM 234/509. German Capital Ships and Raiders in WW2, A naval Staff History, Battle Summary 5, p8, states that Y turret jammed as PoW turned away, and further notes that 2 of her 4 guns were "ready for action by 0720" and again this is consistent with ADM234/509. In Engage the Enemy More Closely, Corelli Barnett, on page 294 notes that Y turret jammed as poW turned away and makes no other mention of gun defects on PoW until he quotes Wake-Walker's statement recorded in Tovey's Official Despatch and also enclosed in ADM 234/509, which is listed by him as a source. Tarrant, page 59: "Throughout the action mechanical failures had dogged both A and later Y turrets. Only the twin gunned B turret had been trouble free. Ignoring 4 rounds fired in 3 salvos by Y turret in local control at the end of the action , Prince of Wales had fired 18 main armament salvoes in which 74 guns in total had been ordered to fire. Because of mechanical defects, only 55 had been able to fire which reduced the full potential by 25.65 percent." On page 54-59 Tarrant describes PoW's gunnery and notes that Y turret's shell ring jammed owing to the "severe motion of the ship" on pages 58-59 and that " Of the 6 guns in A and B turrets only 5 were action." on page 55. Again no mention of 8 out of 10 guns being out of action, and since both of B turrets guns remained in action, this would imply that at the turn away 'A' turret was completely out of action, and yet no source states this. Additionally many sources state that the Admiralty, at Churchill's urging, intended to court martial Leach for turning away. Tarrent quotes the following statement by leach: "Some explanation remains to be made as to my decision to break off the engagement after the sinking of H.M.S. "Hood" - a decision which clearly invites most critical examination. Prior to the disaster to the "Hood" I felt confident that together we could deal adequately with "Bismarck" and her consort. The sinking of "Hood" obviously changed the immediate situation, and there were three further considerations requiring to be weighed up, of which the first two had been in my mind before action was joined. Namely:

(a). The practical certainty that owing to mechanical "teething troubles" a full output from the main armament was not to be expected.

(b). The working up of the Ship after commissioning had only just reached a stage where I felt able to report to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet, that I considered her reasonably fit to take part in service operations. This was the first occasion on which she had done so. From the gunnery point of view the personnel was (sic) immensely keen and well drilled, but inexperienced.

(c). The likelihood of a decisive concentration being effected at a later stage.

In all circumstances I did not consider it sound tactics to continue single handed the engagement with the two German ships, both of whom might be expected to be at the peak of their efficiency.

Accordingly I turned away and broke off the action pending a more favourable opportunity."

Leach was under threat of Court Martial at this time, and if 8 of his his 10 guns were out of action, why would he not state it? Who would blame Leach for turning away with 8 of his guns out of action? Yet neither Leach, Wake-walker, nor Tovey state this. In fact Leach was under suspicion because he turned away with 7 of 10 guns operational, and two of these were from only momentary defects. The statement by G&D is simply wrong, most probably being a "5" being read as "2". Damwiki1 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Antonio Bonomi's article on the HMS Hood website http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/bonomi_denstrait2.htm . This article was originally published in print: December 2005 edition of "Storia Militare" (N. 147 - ANNO XIII), and Bonomi is a respected Naval Historian who has published several books on naval History. Bonomi includes many sources for his article including ADM 234/509.

So we have Roskill, Brooke and Bennett directly contradicting G&D and stating that 5 guns were in action, not 2, and I have bolded Bennett's statement for emphasis. Damwiki1 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The only way for PoW to have 8 out of 10 guns out of action would be for both A and Y turret to have jammed simultaneously. There is no source that states this. Damwiki1 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the studies, by Bonomi which you have linked states that the 15th and 16th salvos fired by Prince of Wales at 6:00 had 10 rounds ordered, only 2-2 were actually fired. The 19th, 20th, and 21st salvos, involving only the Y quadruple turret, maneged to fire 2-2-1 out of the 4-4-4 ordered. See: [1] Then the turret jammed completely. Moreover none of the full 10-round salvos ordered from 5:57 ever managed to fire more than six rounds, indicating that only B(2) + Y(4) turrets were in operation, while A. turret fell out completely. Kurfürst (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Royal Navy fired half of the guns in every salvo, so the maximum number of guns fired per salvo is 5. A two gun salvo would imply that 4 guns were in operation. The 17th and 18th salvos were of 4 guns each, implying 8 guns in operation. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The final rounds fired by Y turret used ammunition that was already in the turret. The turret did not jam, but it's ammunition loading tray located below the turret jammed after salvo 18 cutting off the ammunition supply to the turret. If you look up "Naval Weapons of WW2" on google books, you can see the cover illustration of a 14" quad turret showing the ammunition tray 4 decks below the turret. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Damwiki1 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a footnote with G&D's statement regarding 8 out of 10 guns being out of operation, and that this is contradicted by many other credible sources, including Roskill, who was the Royal Navy's official historian, Bennett and ADM234-509. And heg (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

== choice of 14" guns ==\

The decision to use 14" guns was not "curious" but was mandated by the London naval treaty, as this article points out. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

G&D state that the final design for the KGV was sent to the builders on Sept 30 1936 (p176) and on this date, the London Naval Treaty prohibited battleship guns larger than 14". There is no mention in G&D of a "hot" debate within the Admiralty over gun size, on the pages that Kurfurst provided in his reference. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, G&D state exactly that on page 227, which has been added as reference. Kurfürst (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference P227) is to Churchill, not to the Admiralty. Damwiki1 (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, remove the word 'Admiralty' then, if that what makes you happy, though I truly wonder then where exactly was it supposed to be debated, as G&D state clearly there was a debate about it in the context. Kurfürst (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The only debate that I'm aware of is Churchill's comments in the House of Commons. G&D discuss the debate in the Admiralty in terms of whether or not the KGV class had sufficiently thick armour, hence the decision to reduce the number of 14" guns to 10, from 12, in favour of a deeper, thicker, main belt. Churchill's comments are not really needed since I've already stated that the choice of gun size was controversial, and his comments seems to violate a neutral POV for the article. A decision to wait for the treaty to expire would have left the RN with no modern BBs to face Bismarck, since it would have entailed many months delay before finalizing the design, both of the ships and of the guns. Damwiki1 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Then let us note that the choice of armament was hotly debated, including by Churchill. I agree that Churchill's comments not really needed, since it would be undue weight of the question, it seem sufficient to note that a noteworthy historical figure also participated in that debate - btw I don't see how thats non-NPOV.. noting a fact? Quoting the ex First Lord of Admirality? PS. Though its not relevant for the article, IIRC the Bismarcks were authorized after the KGV (or about the same time), as the Germans were also waiting for the treaty to expire. Besides the Anglo-German naval relations were good at the time. Germany buildt its designs to counter FRENCH ships at the time. Kurfürst (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Churchill was a rather lonely figure in 1936 and not the national leader that he became later. His comments in the HoC do not constitute a "hot debate", but the term "debate" implies opposing POVs, and again there in no evidence for this other than Churchill's comments. Your edit referring to this should be removed. Damwiki1 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Churchill raised the issue of battleship gun calibre once in the House of Commons in 1936 - you can read what was said on Hansard 20 July 1936. The record in Hansard from 20 July 1936 does not justify the claim that the armament was debated by Churchill in the House of Commons. He asked a polite question in a neutral tone.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct quote, page 227 of said source: ' There was much debate over the choice of caliber. Churchill, former 1st lord of admirality, and then a member of parlament, was a severe critic of the 14 inch armament. In a letter, written dated august 1936, he wrote: 'nothing would induce me to succumb to 14 inch if I were in your shoes. The admirality would look rather silly if they are committed to two 14 inch gun ships, and both japan and the US go in for 16 inch in a few months later.' etc.

The source is pretty clear, Damwiki's attempts to remove these facts from the article are not supported. There was clearly a debate; Churchill was a severe critic of the 14 inch guns; it is supported by RSS. Kurfürst (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'll excuse me butting in here. Does Hansard record any actual debate on the guns outside of Churchill's enquiry in the HoC? is this from a year later - but analysis should be left to another relaible source If not then the debate was presumably within the government (Whitehall) and the Navy and those outside of both who took an interest. It is possible for there to be truth in both positions - 1) that there was debate over the choice of guns and 2) that there was little or no debate within Parliament. That Churchill was critical within Parliament does not a debate make if he was the only one.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the debate would be found discussed in a book covering the rearmament period prior to the Second World War. The current sources listed are centred on the ships themselves and presumably less on the events that led to their production.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Roskill in his " Naval Policy between the wars, volume II" p 327-329, does talk of a debate (but not a hot debate) within the Admiralty, but it was a 5 cornered debate regarding gun size, armour, speed, torpedo protection and AA firepower and what should be the correct ratio between these attributes, however, this doesn't sound any different than the typical back and forth over the desired qualities of any warship. In the end the Admiralty chose a ship with high speed, enhanced protection, heavy AA and 10 14" guns. The Admiralty controller wrote that a change to 15" would entail an 18 month delay (which would have meant no new RN battleships until 1942). Roskill also notes that the London Naval treaty stipulated a 14" maximum gun size, with an opt out clause, which Britain was very reluctant to exercise, since they were hoping to persuade the other naval powers to stick to 14" guns - but this is really getting into a lot of detail best left for an article about the treaty itself, IMHO. Damwiki1 (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding Mr Churchill's opinion in 1936-8 to the article. If you read the rules on original research you find:

• "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research"

I am not happy that part of a sentence talking about a debate inside the admiralty has been replaced with some statements about the opinion of one MP in 1936-38. The next part of the sentence talks about the way there was little debate in parliament already covers this. Anyone who clicks on the links in the footnotes can read his very words. I think explicit reference to the member from Epping, suggests that the opinion of the member from Epping actually mattered in 1937-38. Suggesting that the member from Epping's opinion in 1937-38 mattered is original research, and should be deleted. However it would be acceptable to put the reference to the member from Epping in the footnote about the debate in parliament, since that would reduce its prominence in the article and his reminiscences are pertinent to the footnote.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We have devoted an inordinate amount of time regarding mistakes in G&D. I think it would be a good idea for edits to rely on multiple sources. The edit regarding a KGV class being refueled by a USN frigate, does not show up in any other source that I have previously mentioned and given the disparity between fuel capacities of a 20 knot Frigate (500 tons) and a 28 knot KGV class battleship (4000 tons) this seems highly unlikely. OTOH, it was very common for battleships to refuel destroyers and other small vessels. The only frigates used by the USN in the Pacific were those used to screen slower ships such as fleet oil tankers and why would a battleship refuel from a frigate with a tanker nearby? Tarrant has an extensive section on the KGV class in the Pacific and makes no mention of this incident, nor does Task Force 57, by Smith which is a history of the British Pacific fleet. I will investigate further as time permits and if I cannot find a 2nd source I will add a footnote stating the sources referenced and stating that G&D are not support by these sources on this point. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Damwiki1 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

TDS

The page on the Sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse has external links to new research proving that PoW's TDS was not breached by the IJN torpedoes. Middlebrook, in his book Battleship, also discusses this and his conclusions that the TDS did not fail have been proven correct. G&D is outdated on this issue.

Damwiki1 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, Prince of Wales was sunk. Kurfürst (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bismarck was sunk as well, does that mean her TDS was defective? Adding information that is known to be outdated serves only to clutter the article and violates a NPV not to mention the UW on a single source again. PoW sank because of flooding along her propeller shaft and a loss of electrical power to the rear of the ship and not because of any defects in the TDS. Lots of ships have suffered severe flooding along propeller shafts, such as Scharnhorst in 1940 (Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class, Koop, p107: June 08 1940, "2040hrs: following report made to the fleet, condition of the ship, flooding through shaft tunnel starboard...", Pennsylvania in 1945, (US BBs Friedmann, and http://usspennsylvania.org/WarHistory.htm ) and the USN cruisers Houston and Canberra( http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ForwardRepair/index.html ), so this occurrence was not unique to the KGV class. However, in the example given above the ships were able to stabilize the damage caused by the shaft flooding as they were not immediately subjected to further enemy attack. I think you should remove this addition to the article and refer the reader to the article regarding the sinking of the PoW and Repulse.

Damwiki1 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

New information on the loss of PoW and proof that her TDS did not fail: Death of a BattleshipDamwiki1 (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I edited the article with its current wording on Nov 20 2009, and it was deemed acceptable to all until now. The wording that Kurfurst uses repeats unfounded allegations and makes nonsensical statements. The statement "The extent and magnitude of flooding on HMS Prince of Wales raised a serious question about the effectiveness of the torpedo defence system in practice, since the Japanese aerial torpedo charges - 330 pounds of TNT/Hexyl were less than half as powerful as the design resistance of 1,000 pounds." has no place in description of the KGV SPS, since it adds nothing to the article and has no basis in fact, as the current study, also by G&D, reveals. The statement "The loss of the Prince of Wales revealed that propeller shaft glands were susceptible to leakage because of shaft strut damage." is utter nonsense since all ships are susceptible to shaft gland damage if the propeller struts are damaged! Thats why ships have propeller shaft struts! The statement: "When the shaft was bent, it kept turning and ultimately wrecked the shaft glands on all bulkheads of the shaft alley, greatly increasing the flooded area." Implies that the most of the damage was done immediately after the torpedo hit, when the new study proved that it occurred after the shaft was stopped and then restarted. I have been trying to clean this article up, make it descriptive, accurate and retain a neutral POV, but we keep getting this kind of garbage added to it. Damwiki1 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the lack of response implies agreement with my edits of Nov 20, 2009.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You assume wrong. Your Nov 20, 2009 "edits" concentrated on removal of perfectly reliable, referenced sources and replacing with your own opinion on the subject. You seem to be set out to remove any criticism of the design by internationally respected naval experts, and replace them with your own opinion. Needless to say, that is not how Wikipedia articles are built. Kurfürst (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not built by citing sources that are known to be incorrect, nor is it built by placing undue weight on a single source. I have shown that G&D and their volume Allied Battleships to be incorrect on many details of the KGV class history, and the new wreck survey shows that G&D were completely wrong in their assumption (pages 244-246) that a torpedo hit and defeated PoW's SPS on the port side at frame 206, this destroys Allied Battleships as a source of information and analysis of the KGV SPS, as their entire analysis was based upon incorrect information.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

References

The references section of this article is almost empty, but a lot of books are being quoted. Can something be done about it? Kurfürst (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I find these references sections to be most unhelpful since they encourage people to add material, without inline references, thinking that since there is a list of references what they are doing is sufficient. I think the best solution is to delete the references section, leaving the footnotes section to take the load. If you think that references to books in the footnotes section are insufficiently explicit, then expand them for the first time a book is cited. --Toddy1 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war - 14 June 2009 onwards

Copied from User talk:Toddy1#Stop accusation

Stop accusation

Stop accusing other editors with edit warring. It is uncivil. It is you who are reverting back to edits nobody agreed upon: edits that concentrate on merely removing referenced material, just because one editor doesn't like a respected author mentioning a fact. Removing a referenced source without discussing it, based on own OR is unacceptable. It is very uncivil then to accuse others of edit warring, while you are essentially doing it - over a tiny issue that has very little relevance to the whole article, and which is only important to some fanatics. Who the heck cares wheater the PoW had 2, 3,4 or 5 guns operating. The point is that it limped away because most of them were not working. Kurfürst (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not notice that three other editors had developed an improved text. So saying edits nobody agreed upon is not really true.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Toddy1#King George V article may also be relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The text was hardly improved, it was merely a resulting in a wall of text due to simple reason that a single fanatic was unwilling to accept a simple fact, and was trying to find excuses to remove it. Time after time. Now the silly thing contested is gone, and the article is not missing anything with that. Problem solved - do you really think that devoting some 3000 character wall of nonsense, that violated wiki principles on several accounts (OR, synthesis, primary sources etc.), much of it being the fringe theory of a single editor, was actually an improvement to the article...? Wiki says identify common points, but what was produced there was merely tit-for-tat arguements over a non-issue. Kurfürst (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to be civil and have produced large amounts of material on this issue. The only one who is unwilling to accept a fact is Kurfurst, who refuses to recognize that G&D made a statement that is not supported by the historical record. No single source is infallible but since this article brings up problems with the KGV class turrets, it is only fair that these problems be explored and placed in their proper context. AndHeg did reference G&D with a footnote that was further refined by another editor so G&D was not removed but added as a footnote with explanatory text. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• 'And heg' oddly makes only the same edits as you, lives in the same city, connects through the same ISP, and the 'contributions' he makes only repeat the edits you wanted. Curious coincidence I must say!

Oddly again he is not interested in any other wiki article, just the ones you are involved in. This should place into context the 'further refinement' of the article by him, effectively trying to get rid of a quote from a respected author you yourself wanted to get rid of at least two dozen times, in various ways. It seems the reason is that you are unable to accept any negative critique from respected authors on this ship, as was in the case with their comments on the 5.25s (which you kept removing as well). Similarly, you are just as unwilling the fact stated by G&D that by the time the engagement stopped, the Prince of Wales was down to two guns out of the original ten, without a single shot from the enemy...

* Its fairly obvious what the various excuses are aimed at, or how you try to place the G&D quote to a place where nobody can see it, or simply remove it but its isn't supported just because you just don't like it, it will stay in the article.

• There`s currently a large amount of OR in the article, pretending to be cited from reliable sources but all the conclusions are by Damwiki1. These need to be removed.

*There seem to be two solutions to the immensely important question about how many of PoW's guns broke down without any help of the enemy: was it 80% or 'just' 50% of the main battery falling out due to poor design:

One is to represent all sources on the subject, and what they say. Of course at the same time all OR nonsense needs to be removed. Then rename the article 'How many guns the PoW had working at 0613'?

The second solution is to trim down to whole nonsense to its due weight, a minor question amongst the many, to what basically all authors agree on: That the PoW had numerous defects, that many guns were incapable of firing at the enemy, this resulted in the PoW turning tail and run, and when it did, the aft turret broke down too. All authors agree on these facts. This is after all an article on the KGV class, not a an essay of some trivility like the number of guns PoW had in operation when it finally decided it had enough and ran away. Kurfürst (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kurfürst reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: )--Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

'This edit might be acceptable after suitable discussion and input from all concerned'

Referring to this edit: [2]

As it is, the article structure devotes way too much detail to a minor question (ie. PoW guns at Denmark Strait). It seems that trimming it down and rewriting so that only the facts accepted by all authors is presented seems to be acceptable to all editors involved. So I wonder, if there are any objections to the above version? Kurfürst (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does devote much attention to KGV's guns, but this is inevitable given the information you have chosen to include. Your edit above states: "With the range down to 14500 yds and with many of his 14 inch guns out of action, Leach decided to break off his engagement with a superior enemy, soon after which the aft quadruple 'Y' turret also jammed." This is incorrect. Roskill states that only one gun was out of action before Y turret jammed, and ADM234-509 says the same except that it notes two momentary problems with two guns in Y turret. This statement is accurate:"With the range down to 14500 yds and with his guns not giving a full output, Leach decided to break off his engagement with a superior enemy, soon after which the aft quadruple 'Y' turret also jammed." I think the information regarding Bismarck's and PE's output should stay to provide historical context and a NPV. However, a previous edit stated: "The number of known defects in the main armament that was hampering 14 inch fire, the damaged sustained and the worsening tactical situation forced Captain Leach to disengage from combat." and I thought that this was a very good summation of the situation and should be the preferred wording in the article.

I think we should also note that KGV and DoY fought their actions in Force 8 Gales, with 40 knots winds and heavy seas. A loss of output is almost inevitable under those conditions, and under similar conditions both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau suffered the complete loss of both forward turrets, in 1940, for example (Battleships of the Scharnhorst class, Koop). If we are going to emphasize gunnery/turret problems in the KGV class, then we should state that these problems were not unique to this class of Battleship to maintain a NPV. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Battleship comparison

Ship                   King George V                       North Carolina
Length (WL)    740                                 714 ft 
Beam (Ext)     103-0                               108-3 ft-in 
Draft(Deep)    32-9                                33-4 ft-in 
Displacement(Std)       36,730                              36,600 tons 
Displacement(Full Load) 42,080                              44,800 tons 
Weights(Tons):   
Equipment               1150                                1200   
Machinery               2770                                2900   
Armament                6570                                7000   
Protection              12,460                              11,300   
Hull                    13,780                              14,200   
Oil                    3770                                5500   
Power                  110,000                             121,000   
Speed(Deep)            28.25                               26.5   
Main Battery           10-14in                             9-16in   
Belt            -      15in(magazines)                    12in(sloped)                                                 
Belt                   14in(machinery)   
Barbettes              13in                                16in   
Conning Tower          4in                                 16in   
Turret Face/Rear       13in/6in                            16in/7in   
Deck                   6in(magazines)                      3.6&4.1 on                                                 
Deck                   5in(machinery)                      1.375in                                                 
Deck 5in-2.5in(fwd)                      None (Fwd)                                                 
Deck 4.5in(aft)                          6in(Steer Gear) 
Freeboard(Deep)       18-0                                16-0 ft-in 
Armoured Freeboard(Deep)9-9                                 5    ft-in
Armour depth (deep) 14         11   ft-in
Torpedo defence        1000 lb                             700 lb (warhead weight)
Metacenteric height     8.0                                 8.5 ft  
Turning circle(14.5kts) 930                                 575 yds  

This is a comparison of the KGV Class and the USN North Carolina class and I propose to include it into the article. All the information is from US Battleships, by Norman Friedman, p278 with the exception of armour depth which comes from Friedman for North Carolina and Allied Battleships by G&D. The data was produced by the RN Director of Naval Construction to explore the differences between RN and USN Battleships and was reproduced by Friedman.

Damwiki1 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison sections are a non-starter. They are too prone to controversy and edit wars. Plus where would it end, even if you specified just comparing the KGVs to the North Carolinas, I am fairly sure that another enterprising individual would add a comparison to another class, most likely the Bismarcks, and then it would spiral from there. I hate to use the slippery-slope argument, but this is a prime example. There was such a section in Iowa class battleship years ago which was such a hot-bed of controversy that the entire section had to be scrapped. Therefore, I vehemently oppose any suggested addition of a comparison section to any battleship/battlecruiser article. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Against. Not sure I see the purpose. It's comparing chalk n cheese. Different nations built ships for different geography and threats. It also misses detail - some classes had lighter armament but higher rates of fire, better fire control, etc; British ships were built for the Atlantic and gave up on battleships before most major navies, most WWII US ships for the Pacific (generalisation) and opposed the Japanese [Yamato]]s which implied various design differences. Could go on. MBK, if you say such lists prompt bad behaviour, fair enough, but: Why? if they are factual and referenced I don't understand the scope for argument, except jingoism. BTW have a look at List of broadsides of major World War II ships, which seems to pre-empt lists in class articles. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. This comparison was done by the RN during WW2 and was made with full access to both classes of Battleship and as such is not just me deciding what should be compared. This study was done to answer questions regarding the KGV class that arose as to how the USN could seemingly pack so much more into the same displacement, but the study reveals the trade offs in terms of speed, armour and torpedo defence that the USN had to make to achieve longer range and a heavier main armament. You can read Friedman and his analysis of the study here: [3]. It seems to me that the present state of KGV class article is a bit one sided in terms of presenting and focusing on the negative aspects of the class. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree wholeheartedly that the trade offs in armour, weaponry, endurance, etc are of great interest. Also agree that those affecting the KGVs are useful in this article, BUT, I think that detailed analysis of these and other classes would best be in a separate article(s) where a wider view can be taken. It is interesting that within similar dimensions these 2 classes differ so much, but a prose summary and explanation, that's accessible to non-experts, with a link to a more technical article for the "geeks" or curious would, IMO, be better. It would also prevent an over-size article that would probably be constantly "tweaked". BTW, one relevant stat that's missing is crew size, this might affect space for accomodation and supplies, partic relevant for long voyages, as the BPF found out. Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose as per the reasons given by MBK and Folks at 137. Comparisons like this are magnets for edit wars. Nothing good will come out of this, especially considering the history of this article so far. Kurfürst (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Grazke and Dulin in their books point out that comparison is very difficult because of the different requirements and factors influencing construction. An article on the subject would either have to stick very carefully to the simple (length, speed, guns etc) or treat the whole topic of how to compare and what the experts have said. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons are difficult to make, unless you have access to both ship's technical and builders data, which the RN was in the unique position of having during WW2, which makes this comparison so interesting and revealing. However, it seems that it might be better as a separate article.

Damwiki1 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is a separate article, then the opportunity should be taken to make it general and not just a transfer of the KGVs v Nth Carolinas. I realise that some will have more detailed and authoritative bases than others, but that shouldn't stop even contradictory sources being quoted and compared for the readers' benefit. We don't all have access to the heavyweight tomes, but I for one would be interested in what they all say. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To give some idea of what would be involved in a reasonably balanced comparison take a look at http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm and http://www.combinedfleet.com/gunarmor.htm To go into such detail on even two battleships such as KGV and North Carolina would be way outside the scope of a Wikipedia article; for example, I could argue that torpedo defence on the KGV was, in practice incapable of resisting a 1,000 pound warhead citing Richard Worth http://www.amazon.com/Fleets-World-War-Richard-Worth/dp/0306811162 "Designers gave King George V the slimmest anti-torpedo system...then boldly claimed it could resist 1,000 pounds of TNT - a hopeless case of optimism. (Yamato's system only claimed 882 lbs). (p. 95)" Imagine the endless argument over even one technical detail...Minorhistorian (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was aware of "combinedfleet". Not sure if it's anything more than an interesting and amusing opinion, although any good sources might be useful. I would add it as an external link, with a suitable "health warning". The torpedo defence effectiveness is a nice case in point. The putative article should quote and contrast sources and design claims, the debates would then be on their suitability for inclusion, but that should be less difficult to resolve (naïve fool!). It's possible that the official claims were to confuse possible opponents(?); the aircraft capacity of several British carriers was over-stated to deflect attention from their armoured flight decks. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

KGV's SPS was tested in a full scale model trials (Job 74)against a 1000lb charge, and it was successful, so it was hardly a "bold" claim, but was grounded in theory and practice. This is all covered in G&D, pages 364-365. PoW's SPS was never defeated by any of the torpedos that hit her, as 3 of them were outside the SPS, while the hit abreast B turret failed to cause flooding into the magazines despite that fact that the inner and outer void spaces of the SPS had been counterflooded in that area, greatly reducing the system's effectiveness. The SPS was also backed up by extensive void spaces and non essential machinery spaces inboard of it unlike USN systems, but website comparisons like the ones stated above don't like to discuss such messy details. It is only in the last year that proof via dive expeditions, has emerged that the SPS was not defeated - ending decades of speculation. Worth cannot make such a claim now because there is now no proof that the system would not function as designed. Yamato's system was very different and proved to have a significant defect arising from the extension of the belt armour, and the USN system on the South Dakota and Iowa had a similar defect, which the USN discovered through model testing and led to the system being downgraded over that on North Carolina, and is documented by Friedman. Anyone who claims that the USN system was superior to the RN system used on KGV, is simply wrong and the documentation exists to prove it. The RN claims regarding SPS effectiveness were classified during the war as was the USN's specifications. The KGV-North Carolina comparison was the only made by naval experts between serving contemporary battleships for which valid sources exist. In fact the aircraft capacity of the armoured flight deck carriers was not overstated, but was simply calculated to its maximum capacity, using a permanent deck park, For a variety of reasons the RN never used the carriers to their full capacity until very late in the war, but the records exist to prove that the RN calculated what the limits were, based upon various aircraft types as a guide to wartime CV crews and staff planners. I can see that trying to make comparisons beyond specific details would be daunting, but the above comparison is simply a "stand alone" one done by the RN and reported by Friedman. Damwiki1 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

All good stuff and worth mention, given good sources. But such detail would flood articles on specific classes and it's best contained in a separate article, IMO. (BTW, my info re the RN carriers comes from a pocket guide with the Jane's name on it. On the Illustrious class it says "... half the aircraft capacity [of Ark Royal]. ...so to keep the armour secret, the carrier's capacity was deliberately inflated." It also says that its designed capacity of 30 bombers and 6 fighters had increased to 18 Avengers and 36 Wildcats by 1943. Dunno whether that contradicts other sources, but this is the wrong place for this (a separate article!?).) So, who's going to start the "Technical comparisons of World War II battleships" article? Volunteers one step forward. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I will start it, based upon the information that I presented at the start of this section. For now I will confine it to a comparison between KGV and NC.

Damwiki1 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is information available which could prove just about anything; I know that POW was not sunk by torpedoes penetrating the anti-torpedo defences, but that doesn't prove a thing because the torpedoes that were used against her were aerial torpedoes with warheads that were nowhere near 1,000 pounds. As far as I know none of the rest of the KGV class were struck by torpedoes with warhead weights of 1,000 pounds of TNT or an equivalent, so the only data available is through model tests. G & D covers it in two pages, but how much information does two pages cover? Good luck on writing a comparison article; I for one believe that it will create a large amount of arduous "debate", with lots of editing and re-editing.

BTW dismissing Nihon Kaigun as an "interesting and amusing opinion" with "a suitable health warning" is a little casual - does Folks at 137 have the requisite information which "quote(s) and contrast(s) sources and design claims"? Tully, along with Parshall researched and wrote Shattered Sword and Battle of Surigao Strait so I would not dismiss the information so lightly, especially when they also present information like http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm Minorhistorian (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The RN tested the KGV SPS with a full scale model with an actual 1000lb charge, so this is equivalent to a KGV class BB being hit by a 1000 warhead torpedo. This fact alone should suffice to illustrate the system's effectiveness. The speculation that the tests were not accurate were based upon the mistaken assumption that the system had failed in PoW, leading to her loss, but as I've pointed out this was not true. In similar testing the USN discovered, too late, that their new TDS on the South Dakota class was even worse than on the NC class, see Friedman, p285, for more on this. Model tests are valid if the model replicates the actual ship and Brown in Nelson to Vanguard, also discusses the Job 74 tests. The KM designed the Bismarck class SPS and tested in on full scale models and, IIRC, it was designed to defeat torpedoes with a 550lb warhead, and in actual combat, it performed as "advertised" defeating the small warheads on RN aerial torpedoes but, of course, the rudder was outside the SPS system. Anyways, the data that I presented in the Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina is from the RN study, and is simply correct because the RN DNC had physical access to all the needed data from both navies.

Damwiki1 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited the article with this addition: "The RN and USN completed battleships designed to comply with the treaty which has often led to a Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina." MBK undid the edit. Were not both classes designed to the WNT and did the USN and RN not compare them during wartime, and does it not relate directly to the design of the KGV class? Does the study not reveal the design trade-off made by both navies in response to the WNT and the situation in the late 1930s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damwiki1 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You added the statement in without citing any source for the statement that is not biased by being from the Royal Navy or the United States Navy (primary sources are insufficient, they need secondary as well), the placement was not ideal, and the article is best linked through a see also section as the article does not have anything regarding any comparisons and the South Dakota class battleship (1939) were also designed within the Treaty as well. You should know better and proposed such a wording first before going and placing it in the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The data is presented and discussed by Norman Friedman, a very noted naval historian and he certainly constitutes a secondary source. I see no reason for any suggestion of bias. Placing the link in the section that also discusses the WNT seems quite logical and it flows nicely. If the RN did a study of the South Dakota class, and Friedman presented and analysed the study I would certainly consider it warranted for inclusion.

Damwiki1 (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest doing the comparison in a separate article: Comparison of the King George V class and North Carolina class battleships. The article, after the lede, should have a section on the background and purpose for each class and why a comparison is appropriate, followed by the comparison table, and concluding with a brief section on the operational history of each and how it matched their original mission. Cla68 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see someone did it already. Again, it needs to state why the comparison is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

The problem with all comparisons between ships of different countries is that they are designed with varying goals in mind. For example, Italy's rebuilt First World War battleships and the Vittorio Veneto classes had good to great speed but low endurances because they were designed to operate in the small Mediterranean. On the other hand, earlier American battleships—pre-North Carolina—were designed with low speeds but extremely high endurance and good armor protection because they were meant to cross the Pacific to take on the Japanese fleet. My point here is that any comparison between two countries' ships is going to have large disparities because, while nominally the same type of ship, they are meant to fill different purposes. So it is with KGV and North Carolina; the former was designed to counter Germany's newer ships, but political compromises resulted in ten 14" (a far smaller broadside than other ships of the time) rather than 16" guns, while the latter was designed to counter a Japanese fast battleship class, the Kongos, while still being able to fight in a battle line with the older, slower battleships. —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the goals of the comparison was to illustrate that the USN had to make compromises in protection to produce a ship with 9 x 16" guns. KGV's broadside weight is heavier than Bismarck and Richelieu, and both ships have a higher standard displacement than KGV. Damwiki1 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The broadside weight is heavier, but what about other factors? Bismarck and Richelieu were fitted with dual and quadruple turrets, both of which had been fully tested and could be relied upon to not fail in the middle of battle. KGV was fitted with two quadruple and a dual; the former—representing 80% of the broadside weight—had been rushed into production and had many teething problems (see Battle of the Denmark Strait). In addition, assuming that all of guns were in working order, the 14"-armed KGV would have had a lower maximum range than Bismarck or Richelieu. This demonstrates another problem of comparisons: it doesn't treat every factor, just compares statistics. —Ed (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Richelieu's turrets had not been fully tested and none of this class was ever fully completed until late in the war. The KGV class suffered from being completed after the fall of France, and the UK was fighting a large scale aerial attack. PoW was also delayed in completion due to several bombing attacks. The problems with KGV class turrets have been overstated, but due to the general situation in 1940/41 the UK's industrial infrastructure was under considerable strain and there's every likelihood that any turret design would have suffered "teething troubles". NC, for example was completed 6 months prior to the US entry into the war and the USN had time to extensively work up the ships to sort out problems. PoW, OTOH, went to war with civilian workers on board trying to complete the turret installations. The maximum range of KGV's 14" guns was 38600 yds (36,900 yds for NC), which is far beyond the abilities of fire control at that time. After the Battle of the Denmark Straits, PoW fought a short engagement with Bismarck and may have straddled her at ~30000 yds, although most of the 42 rounds fired were not particularly threatening to Bismarck. Bismarck's return fire was too inaccurate for the PoW to even spot the fall of Bismarck's fire. 27-30,000 yds was pretty much the maximum effective range for any country until the development of higher powered radar systems.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The French quadruple turret design had been tested on the Dunkerque-class battleship, while the British dual turrets were well established (see Queen Elizabeth, Renown, Revenge, Hood, the extra turrets for Glorious etc.). Triple turrets would have suffered teething problems, but I don't think that duals would have. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)